Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Ah, Eric3237, my arch-nemesis! So.. we meet again! Bwa-ha-ha! or something like that..

First the science thing..

There's only two ways to give an answer. 1. Objective scientific studies, or 2. Subjective anecdotal opionions.

With the studies you can show what actually unquestioningly happened as X when Z was done.

With opionions you have what?? Just that; someones opinion. What's that worth?

Joe says when he did workout A he gained a lot of muscle. Jack says workout B is the bomb. John swears by workout C. To me that's worthless. That's why you have all these different opinions and no consensus. Invariably and inevitably the last guy in the thread who doesn't want to fight says something like, "We're all different I guess." and of course this favorite of mine, "You have to find what works for you." So basically you have no answer. Then soon enough the question comes up again and we go back around the same pointless circle.

Science attempts to say, look, let's recreate the scenario and we'll all watch and see what happens. Why is that useless?? And if it's of little value as you purport than why is your opinion or anyone elses of any better value?? Why are we to believe an opinion and push the studies to the side?

I really think it's because people don't want to change their way of thinking and admit they've been wrong for all these years and that their own reasoning is flawed.

Yeah studies can be contradictory but they're never worthless.With every study you acknowledge the new info and incorporate it in your thinking. It may or may not change conventional thinking but on the other hand all legitimate studies are to be respected as at least part of the puzzle leading to a new truth. That's how scientific progress is made.

A study doesn't have to duplicate exactly your particular scenario to have value. When we first tried pennicillin on rats it cured them. From that we have a pretty good idea that it will work in humans. If a particular workout works on a particular group there's a reasonable assumption that it may work on other humans.

If a study doesn't recreate what you want exactly or doesn't tell us what we want to hear or seems contradictory to conventional thinking the first thing you hear over and over is, "Science can't explain everything or all those studies are different, you can't trust them." That gives the user an excuse to think well if one's wrong then they're all wrong and ignore them all. That's being lazy. The correct way is to acknowledge the new info and incorporate it in your thinking. It may not be the whole answer but it is part of the voyage to finding the whole truth.

I assure you that every step of medical progress came from studies put together and built on. All medications were created that way. All medical procedures also. Believe me the first guy who operated on the brain was relying on what studies showed him would happened and not on anyone's opinion of what they though would happen when they first sliced into a brain.

What I don't understand with your way of thinking is that you assume they're worthless. Or at least of less value than your opinion.
Instead of discounting every study why not say, "Let's see how this new info fits into our thinking???

Now that I've got you straightened out on that.. ;)
Back to the question.--

Why do a full body workout and rest longer than 48 hours? Might as well split it. You do full body so you can hit each body part every 48 hours.

What I meant about the intensity thing is that it may be difficult to to full intensity full body workouts 3X week. If that's the case then some generic way of cycling your intensity may be neccesary. Something maybe like on Monday do chest hard and legs lite then reverse it. You can work up towards more intensity in more workouts as you go as a way to progress.

Intensity is not an absolute necessity to strength gains although it can play a role BTW.

Your muscles are ready to be worked every 48 hours regardless of the intensity(according to studies of trained individuals-you assumed wrongly this study used un-trained ones). If you feel like you can't then the limiting factor is an over-worked CNS, not the muscles. They rebound quickly. Even being sore doesn't mean the muscle's are not ready to be reworked.

This quote from the HST websight says it best:

The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.

__________________
There are in fact, two things: science, and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -Hippocrates of Cos
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common." —John Locke
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” - Jesus Christ

"Perago Validus"

Whoa, whoa! You're calling the vast accumulated experience of strength and conditioning coaches anecdotal? Bro....

Anyone who thinks they can train someone based on scientific studies just hasn't had much experiece training people, I bet. I'll get into this more later but for right now let me say that I like science too but you are putting MUCH too much weight on studies.

I don't disagree with any of that except that it is a good example of that minute physiological detail I was talking about. You just can't base good programming solely on lab talk and what the scientific literature shows about recovery is only specifically true for the individuals that the study was done on. The athlete is not a close stagnate system. He is a dynamic one. I think that routines tending towared higher frequency are better, on that were in agreement.

Taking a week off of course is something everyone is going to need now and again. But the point of what I was saying is that you do not need time off in order to stave off CNS fatigue. You need relatively small alterations in intensity or total work. So the thing is the week off thing in HST and intensity cycling are not the same thing. Intensity cycling is based on the continuation of stegnth gains and since HST by it's own name is for hypertrophy only program strength continuation is not a consideration.

I will sum up my opinion on this very simple. It's all about progression. If you are progressing you are gaining. The program must ensure progression for whatever individual. Talking about these little details leaves a lot out. It doesn't say anything about the training modalitly. Depending on the training mode, it is doubtful whether someone could continue to progress on a 48 hours basis past the beginner stage. That doesn't mean he can't workout every 48 hours.

If you can progress in that way for a meaningful time period then recovery is taking place within that time period and metabolic fatigue is not building up. Metabolic fatigue is a function of the CNS so that's the CNS overtraining (potentially) you were speaking of. Recovery and fatigue are both part of adaptation so if you are able to progress this way then fatigue cannot be accumulating very much. Because if it were you would not be able to display those gains every 48 hours on a routine basis. Speaking of recovery of the muscles and CNS fatigue as if they are separate things just doesn't make much sense. Likewise it doesn't make sense to generalize all metabolic fatigue as overtraining because it is not.

Obviously a significant build up of fatigue is not very likely on HST. It looks simply at muscular adaptation and tries to base pure hypertrophic gains off that. A lot of people have said it is "based" on fitness-fatigue model because of this but I think that is poppy-cock and BH himself refutes this. There are a lot of drawbacks to this kind of training and that is what usually results form routines based around studies....something that is overly complicated and which continues to break down for each individual resulting in all sorts of discussion and "tweaking" of the program. Which is what you get with anything once you get past the "cookie-cutter" stage. So whats the difference?

No. You show that X happened with a particular set of trainees with similar training status when z was done. And not all of them. Just most of them.

Sounds like you are looking for the best way. So you look at science. There is no best way. There are certain ways that work better than others and there are ways that will work better for a particualr person at a particular stage of training. But you will not find a best way.

Well the studies rarely recreate a real world scenario. The scenario is the scenario in the study. But I didn't say it's useless or of little value. But you seem to be going to the extreme end of basing everything on studies. I agree with the jist of a lot of what you are saying. I agree that studies are a piece of the puzzle.

They are usually nowhere near long term enough nor have a large enough sample to be as objective as you would have them be. Anytime studies attempt to look at larger samples for longer periods of time it fails. The studies most people quote represent a snapshot. But training is not a spapshot it is more like a moving picture.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should incorporate the info from studies into our thinking. But by you above post everyone should be doing 2 to 3 sets every 48 hours. Would that info have been the same if the training status of those involved was more advanced? NO.

Can everyone workout every 48 hours (obvioulsy with some weekends off or something). Yeah. Can everyone progress consistently every 48 hours? No way. It's two different things.

As far as me discounting studies I've either discussed or posted these studies myself ad infinitum. I didn't just jump off a turnip truck yesterday, you know . I'll bet I've posted more studies than you It's not new info to me and I am not saying it's wrong info. What I am saying is you are making broad generalized conclusions about it and that is wrong. I would encourage you to expand you thinking to some of those "opinions" your were talking about. Because unless were just talking about HST I doubt you would be able to apply all of this to a generalized audience very well.

Again I agree that full body programs are a good way to go for a vast majority. For most past the beginner stage some type of intensity variation within the weak is going to be necessary. The thing about recovery being the same regardless of intensity is cetainly untrue. That would mean that you could generalize recovery with higher workloads lower overall intensity and higher intensity lower workloads. But the recovery curve for these is markedly different. You can't really talk about intensity without considering volume or vice versa but to say that intensity has no effect on recovery in general makes no sense.

Likewise I don't understand the statement that intensity is not a requirement for strength gains. What does that mean? Intensity is a relative term. Are we saying that people can make strengh gains consistently at LOW intensities? Say below 70 to 75 percent. A novice could make some strength gains that way. But some high intensity work is going to be necessary in the long run for continued strength gains. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your statement though.

If you can progress consistently every 48 hours then do it. But not everyone can continue to progress every 48 hours. So then we get into periodization and varying the intensity and we can STILL do better with full bodies. But an upper lower split could also be very effective for some people. But what has all this to do with your muscles being ready or you CNS? Well when it comes to simple progression not a lot. If you can progress that way you do it and if you can't it's going to be difficult to find a study that will tell you how to continue. Unless eveyone is supposed to be doing HST...but I like to be able to have a lot of strength for my hard work in the gym.

That is so VERY black and white. There are many ways to get good info.

Let's take an expample. Look at a football team. You have a need for some of these guys to be (in a general way of speaking) big and strong. Now you ask these guys who they won't showing them the way between an experienced coach (probably with his own degree) and a physiology major in a white coat who's likely never seen the inside of a gym. What do you think the chances will be they pick the coach.

Do you think the coach bases everything on his own personal opinion based solely on subjective experience? Of course not. He bases it on 1. a thourough understanding of the basics of programming which is grounded in both science and the experience of those before him; 2. his own experience and objective observation of the trainees he's worked with, and 3. the science as it applies and illuminates all those things.

You are saying that everything that is not clinical in nature is subjective in nature and that is simply not true. By the same token we have to be somewhat subjective as we don't want to generalize everything we see to include ourselves. We take what works and throw out the rest. But there are definitely big huge guys out there who don't have a clue how they got there and who's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. There are also a lot of them that do know how they got there. I think there is something to learn from everyone and not JUST scientific studies. In general I'm going to weight the info from the big huge guy first simply because he has the time under the bar, no matter how subjective his opinion may be. The trick is to learn enough to separate the wheat from the chaf.

The first guy to operate on a brain was an ancient Roman . Ok so that is true but the first modern guy to operate a brain knew what was going to happen based on studies? Bro, I'm sorry but you are really off base here. The first guy who operated on a brain was taking a lot of guesses and a lot of chances. You can't even be sure where the veins and nerves are in any one individual. The first new surgery is taking a plunge into the unkown. I've actually assisted in veterinary surgeries. But none of this has anything to do with training.

Keep in mind that I AGREE with you that for the great majority a 3 times a week fullbody is the best bet. But you went beyond that and started prescribing sets and reps for everyone and when you get into that you have to get into the persons traininging experience and goals. There is no reason that three sets of 8 or so is better than 5 sets of 5 or 4 sets of 6 for that matter. In general I'd tell you that if you take a guy who starts out squatting 100 and and works that up to 300 and past then you have a much bigger guy. Onward and upwards past that and he is going to be an even bigger guy but there will come a point where "2 or 3 sets of 8 (or whatever) doesn't cut it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

Let me make something clear while I'm on the subject. I have no problems with the tenants behind HST. However. And most of the philosophy underpinning it is a very good message. But that does not mean that everthing you read in those tenants is an absolute truth and you also must be able to interpret them in a broader context.

That's a good for instance. People think as soon as you reach a plateau that's it, shows over. By HST's tenants you'd have to decondition. But a plateau is NOT an absolute limit. It is a roadblock. The key word is eventually. The absolute limit to the "number of increments" any one individual can load is not going to be easy to predict. And there are many more manipulations than just than just a few like cycling back or time off which can allow someone to progress for much longer periods of time than the "you adapt after _______ weeks" crowd would have you believe. So much of training it seems to me comes from a desire to take the hard work out of it. It's easier to adopt the belief of "I've adapted" so you can have variety and all that than it is to adopt an attitude of patience, diligence, and hard work.



And a lot of this is old stuff. But old stuff becomes new and new stuff becomes old and then the old stuff is new again with a new twist added.

The biggest difference between shiny new conscepts like HST and "old-fashioned" strength and mass programs like the 5x5's we are talking about is just that: patience and diligence.

Very good post Eric.

And i agree with most of it except "There is no reason that three sets of 8 or so is better than 5 sets of 5 or 4 sets of 6 for that matter."

Why do 8 reps when <6 reps, when the heaviest loads are used, effectively stimulate all fiber types there are to stimulate?

Also, why do high sets when muscle growth can be very adequately stimulated with relatively few sets if each workout set is performed to the point of muscle failure?

Does these not quailify as reasons?

Personally I agree with you completely IB, but not everyone wants to be a monster. There are advantages to doing 8,10,12,15 reps a set, although they may not be strength, or even muslce stimulating advantages.

for instance, HST starts off in the 15's, one perticular reason is because sets like that have been shown to improve joint elasticity. Also, if your goal is to drop body fat, higher rep ranges can be used to create a cardio like effect ... especially when supersetting, or doing a glycogen depletion workout, a la UD2.

IMO if your goal is strength/mass you cant beat low rep sets with heavy resistance. Its just that simple, but I think eric was getting at, not everyone has the same goals, so you cant just prescribe sets/rep ranges as if they are the same as you.

__________________
I don't do this for my family, my friends, women, accolades, pride, or ego. I do it for me and no one else, its just part of who I am.

This is all true and I'll get to my rebutable of Eric's post later but I've based all my statements assuming that the goal IS hypertrophy. This is BodyBuilding dot net, isn't it?? ;)

VERY good post?? Well maybe a GOOD post but I'm not sure about the VERY part. LOL! JK!

There are PLENTY of reasons to vary the reps depending on your goals. Studies show (sorry Eric, there I go again!) over and over the different results you get when varying the rep range..

Iron

LOL, here we go with the strength vs hypertrophy thing again. I'm not getting into it anymore.

I'm not sure who is agreeing or disagreeing with what but hrdgain is right for the most part in what I was getting at.

But this is what everyone is missing to me: As hrdgain said you can't beat lower reps (something like 5x5) for stength and mass. But if you discount the importance of a very good stength base is getting to your mass potential then you are making a mistake. All these people who talk about hypertrophy and high reps need to look at this on little thing: if you haven't tried a strength/mass routine you really don't have a lot of room to talk.

I'm sorry but it's true. If you've never done a strenght/mass routine then don't go telling the people who know about it it doesn't work for "hypertrophy". The faster you get the core lifts up close to your stength potential the more impact those high reps and everything else you do will have in terms of hypertrophy.

I recommend what I've done and what I have the best results from. Period. There are times for differnet rep ranges as hrdgain said. And I use them all at one point or another in my training. But if you don't think that 5 sets of 5 reps in a progressive fullbody routine doesn't stimulate a lot of growth it is because you've never done it. You can get a lot of growth from a conjugate westside routine...there is after all the RE days.

But Iron go ahead and speak about the difference between bodybuilding and strength all you want. It won't matter to me becasue I am speaking from my experience and the experience of people who know more than me. Some day you'll discover that science won't make you big. That it's just a tool. But if you discount experience of others it really won't do me a lot of good to argue.

As far as I'm concerned that post of mine was a brilliant one j/k

Try reading Madcow's article on the subject here:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...rent-2972.html

Iron Bull I see what you are saying btw about all fibers being stimulated but don't discount the effect of the neural effeciency gained from lower reps also. To me when people start talking about stimulation of fibers and all that they are getting lost in the details. I don't mean that as an insult is just think it's an easy trap to fall into in the quest for knowledge. What you learn about yourself through your own training is just as important as anything you read, also, imo. But it's nice to have very clear signs pointing you to the right paths.

And Iron, you may not have noticed but I have over 2500 posts on the forum so, yes, I know the name of it .

Sorry, lefedex, for the severe hyjacking! Hopefully you get something out of it.

Your right Iron, as a bodybuilder your main goal should be hypertrophy. Unless of course your in contest prep ect.

Since I am not a bodybuilder, i tend to forget that this is first and foremost a bodybuilding website. There are those of us here that are not at all concerned with hypertrophy, and tend to place much more emphasis on strength. Personally, I find that if you are pushing heavy wieghts, you will get big. It may not be optimal, but having a strong base is going to go a long way on the road to hypertrophy.

Its funny this is coming up now, I've been very puzzled as of late when I go into the gym. there have to be 7-10 dudes who look jacked. they have relatively low bf, and are large and vascular. Now I dont normally give a shit what other people are doing in the gym, but i take notice incase I have to ask someone for a spot. And every single one of those guys pushes weak ass wieghts. I dont mean it as an insult, but what the hell is the point of looking like Heman, and being as strong as smurfet? Sure you look great, go get on stage, but when i ask you to hand me a 45lb plate, and you struggle ...

Personally I've always gotten the best results growth wise lifting heavier. I would never discount that everyone is different, however. While this is a bodybuilding site the majority of us never have any intention of stepping on a stage. Like hrdgain said, some of us don't want to work our ass off in the gym and then throw out our backs moving furniture around. There is for some also a general sense of "fitness".

What applies to the elite bodybuilder with genetics and gear on his side doesn't apply to everyone. There are other ways to get big and the look that some people want to achieve may be different than what you want to achieve. The idea that we should never talk about reps outside the 8 to 12 range is ridiculous. You can be a bodybuilder and not want to be a big weak water weenie .